Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Maria C. Roldan-Tennantand Kenneth C. Tennant, Together With Two Minor Children, With v. Qcr Holding

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS ROCK ISLAND DIVISION


September 26, 2012

MARIA C. ROLDAN-TENNANTAND KENNETH C. TENNANT, TOGETHER WITH TWO MINOR CHILDREN, WITH HOUSEKEEPING AT THIRTY-NINE THIRTY-FIVE ROLLING HILLS DRIVE, BETTENDORF, COUNTY OF SCOTT, IOWA
PLAINTIFFS,
v.
QCR HOLDING, INC., DBA 3351 --7TH STREET, SUITE 204 MOLINE, IL 61265 AND QUAD CITY BANK AND TRUST CO., INC. DBA 2118 MIDDLE ROAD, BETTENDORF, IOWA 52722 DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Sara Darrow United States District Judge

E-FILED

Wednesday, 26 September, 2012 04:20:41 PM Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD

ORDER

This Court granted Defendants' [#4] Motion to Dismiss because Plaintiffs failed to oppose and because a virtually identical lawsuit was filed by Plaintiffs in the Southern District of Iowa before this case was filed. Before the Court now is Plaintiffs' [#6] Motion to Reconsider.

Plaintiffs did timely oppose Defendants' Motion to Dismiss and the Court will therefore consider Plaintiffs' opposition.*fn1 However, the Court is not persuaded by Plaintiffs' opposition. Plaintiffs first filed their virtually-identical complaint in the Southern District of Iowa. This action is therefore duplicative and judicial administration counsels towards dismissal. See Serlin v. Arthur Anderson and Co., 3 F.3d 221, 223 (7th Cir. 1993); Hicks v. Midwest Transp., Inc., No 07-cv-854, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 30122, at *3 ("When duplicative claims are pending in multiple federal forums, the later filed actions generally give way to the first filed.") (citing Warshawsky & Co. v. Arcata Nat. Corp., 552 F.2d 1257 1265 (7th Cir.1977)).

Plaintiffs' argument against dismissal is that the Southern District of Iowa will not fairly evaluate Plaintiffs' case. The Court is not persuaded that the District Court in Iowa is unable to objectively and fairly adjudicate Plaintiffs' claims. At best, Plaintiffs' opposition amounts to frustrations with prior adverse rulings. Indeed, Plaintiffs' distrust of the Iowa Court is somewhat disingenuous as Plaintiffs voluntarily filed their case there. And dismissal of Plaintiffs' claims in this forum cannot adversely affect Plaintiffs' claims in the Southern District of Iowa because Plaintiffs' virtually identical claims can be litigated to the same extent there as they could be here. Allowing duplicative actions to proceed in parallel is an unwise use of scarce judicial resources.

Accordingly, Plaintiffs' [#6] Motion to Reconsider is DENIED and Plaintiffs' claims are dismissed. The Clerk is directed to enter Judgment in favor of Defendants and against Plaintiffs.

Sara Darrow


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.